Union Of INDIA vs. M/S Elora Tobacco Company LTD. Through Its Director Shri Dharmendra Singh Parmar

Held

The Court held that the review petition fails and is dismissed. It reiterated the limited scope of review, emphasizing that it is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear concluded matters or challenge a decision merely because an alternative view is possible. The Court noted that its previous order directing the return of original non-relied documents was based on Section 67(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017, and was supported by judicial precedents. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated May 20, 2024, and maintained its directions as just and proper. The petitioner's arguments regarding lost documents and the admissibility of scanned copies were not found to warrant a review of the prior order.

Facts

The Union of India (petitioner) filed a review petition seeking to review a High Court order dated May 20, 2024, which had allowed a writ petition filed by M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. (respondent No. 1). The original writ petition directed the revenue to return original documents seized from the petitioner that were not relied upon for issuing show cause notices dated June 8, 2022, and August 3, 2022. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 1 was stalling adjudication proceedings by refusing to file a reply without these original documents. The petitioner claimed that three specific files (File No. 11, 12, and 13) were lost, and an FIR was registered. They contended that scanned copies of these lost statutory documents were provided and were admissible under Section 145 of the CGST Act, but respondent No. 1 insisted on originals, hindering the process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's order dated May 20, 2024, allowing the writ petition and directing the return of original non-relied upon documents, contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission that certain original documents were lost, in contravention of Section 67(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 was using the order to stall adjudication. They argued that the lost documents were statutory, scanned copies were provided and admissible under Section 145 of the CGST Act, and the insistence on originals was unreasonable given the loss. They also raised concerns about the validity of the search and seizure process, citing non-compliance with CBIC circulars and instructions regarding Panchnama and DIN numbers. Respondent No. 1's arguments: Respondent No. 1 argued that the scope of review is limited and no error apparent on the face of the record exists. They asserted that Section 67(3) of the CGST Act mandates the return of original non-relied documents and does not permit submission of reproduced documents. They emphasized the importance of original documents for authenticity and fair defense, and questioned the petitioner's claims about lost documents, highlighting inconsistencies in their FIR and the scanning process.